Joe Bastardi On Water Vapour & El Ninos
By Paul Homewood
Joe Bastardi develops the his ideas on how oceans affect global temperatures, in a guest post at Climate Change Dispatch:
Given it’s the number one greenhouse gas (GHG), one would naturally think water vapor (WV) is the big powerhouse in global weather and climate.
It’s why I am a lone voice in the wilderness who supports Dr. John Cahir’s idea from year’s ago that the real metric to measure global warming is saturation mixing ratios.
Unfortunately, such an idea is about as popular as an outbreak of influenza with so many scientists pushing CO2-driven warming.
Why? Well, what is the number one source of thermal energy on the planet, with 99.9%? The oceans. What is the prime source of water vapor (and arguably CO2)? The oceans.
The recent Super El Nino sent an immense amount of water vapor into the pattern. I have already opined that this has a very long life as far as the effect on the planetary temperature goes because very tiny amounts of water vapor left over in the pattern have their biggest effect on the arctic temps in their cold season.
So, while the Earth’s temperatures, where it’s above freezing much of the time, return to normal, the amount of warmth left in the Arctic areas continue to skew the Earth’s temperatures.
It also leads to interesting other feedback aspects, which we have to deal with in forecasting. So, it is very important to us. But also understanding the source and those implications are important.
But the Super Nino and where we are now in the Arctic, and in fact, the entire state of the oceans, should make a big point,
Once again, as we see almost every year since the warming began, as we head into the warmest time of the year, the Arctic temps go below normal!
Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th parallel, as a function of the day of the year.
You can go to this site and go back and review what is going on:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
You can see what I am talking about here. Notice the bulk of Antarctica in its winter is warm, while the Arctic has flipped to cold.
While the NCEP CFSR has the current temp at plus 185C vs the 30-year mean, if not for the major warmth over the Antarctic and again, remember how small it increased in WV when and where it’s very cold and dry really have a big effect on temperature, the rest of the planet is at average or below.
What is impressive is the amount of cold over northern Antarctica and over the water just to the north That is not easy to do, Of the three continents in the southern hemisphere (south of the equator), only Australia is warm.
In any case, if we look at the saturation mixing ratio tables, what happens if extra water vapor (only very tiny amounts) get pushed into the Arctic.
Well, it’s going to snow more but it’s going to be warmer (more clouds) have to form.
January, in spite of all the warming, was still very cold. So, look what has been going on with snow in the past 30 years–green line. Not much change, but since the colder times (red line) it has INCREASED! What could the cause be? There has to be extra moisture (water vapor):
Read the full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
How do you define “Northern Antarctica”? Surely everywhere in Antarctica is north of the South Pole!
It’s obvious to any physicist (but not to establishment climate “scientists”) that the water cycle is what dominates the climate’s heat transfer processes. The high sensible and latent heats means that water dominates in the heat transfer processes over all other gases.
Yes. A good presentation.
From my engineering perspective I find that the atmospheric Rankine Cycle explains a great deal and particularly in the understanding of the fractal mechanisms occurring within the clouds. Indeed large energies are involved which morph from state to state.
I sometimes wonder whether it is BO or flue that afflicts me, judging by the responses I get.(sarc!
A thought just crossed my mind (!) — I wonder how many climate scientists know what you mean by the Rankine Cycle or “fractal mechanisms”. For sure I don’t but then I don’t pretend to be any sort of scientist and the wellbeing of the human race doesn’t depend on what I know — for which we should all be grateful!
They on the other hand are supposed to get it right and to know what they talking about. More and more I believe that they don’t know and don’t care as long as the trough doesn’t dry up till after they are dead.
Joe, as usual, talks good sense.
I have just posted a comment over on WUWT on the “Fellows of the Royal Geological Society pushback over climate position”.
It’s an open letter written on behalf of 33 current and former fellows of the Geological Society to their president.
The letters beauty lies in it’s simple English, not a chart, table or graph in sight.
I suspect over 80% of the world’s population are not scientists. We look at technical stuff and our eyes glaze over. For example, I understand there’s a scientific reason for using Kelvin in the temperature graph above, but we laymen barely understand the difference between Fahrenheit and Centigrade, never mind Kelvin. To make matters worse, the table has temperatures in Fahrenheit. Nothing wrong with that assuming one has the knowledge and mental dexterity to instantly flip from one to the other and not lose the thread of the discussion, but again, 80% of the population don’t
It’s my enduring cry about sceptical communication. We are convinced the science will prevail against politics, but when politicians already have a stranglehold on 80% of the less informed, what use is it convincing the intelligent 20%. Alarmists rarely convert to scepticism and vice versa. The people to convince are the 80% because they have a single vote each, just like scientists.
Even if every scientist converted to scepticism, that’s only 20% of the votes to a politician, hardly worth bothering about.
Sceptics need to stop convincing themselves they are right, we know we are right. But to appeal to the journalists (also not scientists) who in turn appeal to politicians, sceptics need to get cuter and start talking their language.
Hot Scot — who could possibly disagree? Preaching to the choir is all very well but you don’t make any converts that way.
The other point I have banged on about for years is that global warming >> climate change >> climate weirding has nothing, nil, nix, nada, zilch to do with science. It is and always has been socio-political or enviro-political depending on where you approach it from.
It started with fears about global cooling (it probably was conceived before that) and its exponents then were Ehrlich, Strong, the Club of Rome and others whose names are familiar to all of us. When that bird crashed to earth switching to global warming was a cinch.
The enviro-mentalists aren’t interested in sea-level rise or more severe weather or the earth’s temperature. They are not demanding we end fossil fuel use because CO2 is going to bring disaster to the earth. They are using the threat of a CO2-caused catastrophe to demand an end to fossil-fuel use because that is what keeps modern developed societies functioning. And they have made it clear time and again that that is what they can’t abide!
Yet we don’t appear to be able to challenge them effectively. Why is that?
Mike Jackson
However compelling an argument the Club of Rome, and UN ambitions of global governance are, they can’t be included in communicating to the public or we sceptics will be dismissed as conspiracy crackpots.
The science, whilst vital, needs to be communicated plainly. I believe shifting the momentum to scepticism of climate change by that means will, in itself, extinguish the Club of Rome’s immediate ambitions and the UN will be vulnerable to fund starvation, and it then must retreat to protecting its core function.
All sounds simple on a blog, but nothing will happen until sceptics can get to the 80%. The Trump administration may well start the ball rolling but there will be people who object to scepticism only because Trump’s a sceptic.
Exactly so. My “why is that” was in part rhetorical. But somewhere in all this there is a chink in the political armour because fighting on the scientific front invariably leads to “these are the experts; what would you know?”
Just look at the sheer number of sceptical papers Pierre Gosselin has referenced over the last year and still his resident troll refuses to budge a millimeter. Agreed that referencing the politics instead does make him see us, in your words, as “conspiracy crackpots” so where does that leave us?
“so where does that leave us”?
Defiant, and spoiling for a fight unfortunately the milquetoasts, dilletantes and statisticians who inhabit the climastrology redoubt have no intention of coming out and meeting us, and in that we are at impasse. Further over in the distance and because the redoubt protects the soft underbelly hinterland – the politicians never hear the real science or of our noise and righteous fury.
We need a bunker bomb, Mr. Donald J. Trump may the man to facilitate its delivery!
damn it dilettantes.
Those I trust to opine on climate, etc. are: Joe Bastardi, who received his degree from Michael Mann U., more commonly known as Pennsylvania State University or Penn State. Also atop my list are Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy, who are both associated with The University of Alabama, Huntsville campus. When they speak, I listen.
Science is not something which cannot be understood by the non-scientist. Those who make it such are elevating themselves or choosing to obfuscate for political reasons. As a botanist, I can bury all but other botanists in botanical jargon OR I can explain things without the scientific rhetoric to be understood by almost all. I do this every year as a botanical leader on the West Virginia Wildflower Pilgrimage (my 38th year as a leader was in May). Is your aim to allow others to enjoy and learn about your passion or to impress them with your lack of ability to be understood?
Science is really nothing more than curiosity and common sense tested. With the religion of climate, we have left out the “tested” part.
In engineering the real test is the user experience. The user doesn’t have to understand how my product works but is free to pass comment good, bad or indifferent. That way we progress to achieve more and better.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
But my argument here is (and again it’s based on Dr. Cahir’s argument), these very tiny increases because what looks to be a red paint bomb of death warming when that same increase in WV where people live means next to nothing
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Reblogged this on The Road to Revelation.